Category Archives: Economics

Miscellaneous economy stuff

The California Magnet

Posted on by
Reply

Newly sworn-in California governor Gavin Newsom (D) has a plan to expand on the State’s sanctuary “status” and draw even more illegal aliens into the State and into the country:

…an unprecedented new health care agenda for his state, aimed at offering dramatically more benefits to illegal immigrants….

As Newsom noted,

People’s lives, freedom, security, the water we drink, the air we breathe—they all hang in the balance

And Newsom wants to increase that risk by encouraging a flood of illegal aliens to enter the State. It’s true enough that the vast majority of those illegals are harmless beyond the economic burden they’ll inflict in Newsom’s brave new world of hugely expanded, and hugely more expensive, health care for all, citizen and illegal alike.  However, it’s also that the few who are dangerous are capable of inflicting vast damage—as the families of MS-13, et al.; the survivors of 9/11 (which terrorists entered legally, but they’re not the only terrorists entering); the victims and their families of the cartels’ drug epidemic; the families of Kate Steinle, Ronil Singh, Pierce Corcoran, Silvano Torres, and a host of others can attest.

His health care “expansion?”  He intends to implement the erstwhile Obamacare Individual Mandate at the State level.  Everyone will be required to purchase health coverage whether they need it or not, whether they want to or not.  Except those like illegal aliens, who can’t afford it.  Those coverages will be paid for by the State’s citizens and legal residents.  Somehow.  Oh, and “children?” They’ll be allowed, under Medi-Cal, to stay on mumsy’s and pop-pop’s health coverage plans until they’re 26, instead of the current age limit of 19.

Newsom has had no words on how this expansion is to be funded.  Apparently, he’s channeling Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY):

People often say, like, how are you going to pay for it, and I find the question so puzzling because “How do you pay for something that’s more affordable? How do you pay for cheaper rent?” You just pay for it.

Because vastly expanding a program makes it cheaper.  Sure.

But Newsom and his clan of Progressive-Democrats in the State’s legislature don’t care about that.  They only care about the bennies flowing from their expensive, and dangerous, virtue signaling.

Union Greed

Posted on by
1

Teachers union style.  The Los Angeles Unified School District is so close to out of money that, under California law, the LA county is obligated to take the district into functional receivership under its own control if money gets much shorter.

It’s about to, and they’re about to.  The United Teachers Los Angeles union has said it will strike the school district, demanding more money—twice as much as it’s been offered—if it can’t get more money for its teachers and get rival, and educationally superior, charter schools capped on the State resources they receive.

In addition to putting those charter school children at risk, the union is willing to put 480,000 children in the school district in educational harm’s way, if the union can’t get its lucre.  Nor does this union care about the low-income families’ working parents—the bulk of the district’s children come from such families—who must find other means for monitoring their kids, much less educating them, which will add to those parents’ costs.

Sure, sure, the district wants to try to keep the schools open even without the union teachers. District leadership intends to employ “educational software and substitutes.” Two things about that: if the educational software actually is all that, the district will discover that it doesn’t need all of those union teachers after all.  The other is that substitute teachers are just that—useful for short term classroom monitoring and a modicum of teaching, but they’re not the real thing.

And just to drive the point home:

On the last day of class before winter break began, teacher Meg DeCoux packed six boxes of books, whiteboard markers and art supplies from her first-grade classroom. She and other teachers bought some of the supplies with their own money and don’t want them to be available to administrators or other substitutes during a strike, she said.

I bought this stuff.  It’s mine.  Mine, mine, mine.  If I can’t use it, nobody can.

That’s union selfishness on top of union greed.

Brexit and a Pan-European Military Establishment

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the year-old EU effort with PESCO (the EU’s carefully euphemistically named Permanent Structured Cooperation), the bloc’s effort to form an EU army that would represent and act in the (sovereign) name of the European Union in defending Europe from outside incursions.  Oh, and be less dependent on us and our nuclear umbrella, our treasure, and our blood for their defense.

We’re seeing yet another example of the too-broad effort to unite all of Europe under one political flag, as this PESCO effort continues to lag.  More importantly, we’re seeing the cost to the EU of Brexit.  As Handelsblatt Today observed, the current situation is one of military failure:

The German Council on Foreign Relations (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Auswärtige Politik, DGAP) and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) recently reported that the EU at best has only a third of the resources needed for its ambitions to intervene in armed conflicts in Europe or neighboring regions, provide humanitarian aid in catastrophes, help in rebuilding programs, and to free hostages and evacuate civilians.
The EU does not have enough ships, planes, aircraft carriers, or even reconnaissance equipment to accomplish these goals, especially after the UK leaves the EU.

Notice that last.  Aside from the minor detail that the Brits will take with them half the EU’s carrier complement (France has the other one), they’re taking with them manpower, equipment, a serious (by European standards) defense budget, and a strong innovative capacity.

Prime Minister Theresa May is badly missing another strong bet in her series of missed bets as she “negotiates” Great Britain’s departure from the EU.

Trump and Powell to Meet

Posted on by
Reply

Oh, the danger.  At least what Peter Nicholas and Paul Kiernan worried about in their Friday Wall Street Journal piece.  President Donald Trump might exert too much pressure on Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell.

[A] sit-down could pose serious risks to the perceived independence of the Fed, according to lawmakers, former Fed officials, and longtime central bank watchers.

Maybe even fire Powell, or threaten him with that.

Most of the ones making such claims are Progressive-Democrats manufacturing a beef for the sake of having something Trumpian about which to whine.

To the extent the threats exist, those exclaiming over them are insulting Powell, saying he’s such a limp-kneed coward that he’d take such threats seriously—as though they think Powell would consider his having the job to be more important than his own integrity or the duties levied on him and the requirements levied on the Fed he leads.

…it [the meeting] could give rise to outside speculation that Mr Trump is seeking to sway Fed policy given his public objections to higher interest rates, these people added.

Of course Trump would, or I hope he would.  That’s part of his duty as this nation’s Chief Executive.  Along with every Congressman, the President has a duty to speak his piece on economic policy—including to members of the Fed’s governance—and to push for his position. Including with members of the Fed’s governance.

The Fed is a part of our government; it is not above it; it cannot require audiences to be begged for before anyone can come before it.  No one in the Fed is too holy or beyond approach.  By anyone.

Powell understands that; he’s not the Milquetoast he’s made out to be by such…concerns.  Alternatively, if he is, he should be fired.  That personal weakness would amply satisfy the “for cause” requirement for a President to fire a Fed Chairman.

The Party of Expansionist, Acquisitive Government

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what we can see made plain in the incoming Congress’ House of Representatives.  Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D, NJ) had this on her Progressive-Democratic Party’s plans:

There are dozens of measures…that have been languishing with Republicans at the helm for years, and I expect to see many of them finally come to the floor under Democratic leadership[.]

Plans like rolling back the just enacted tax cuts and preventing the individual income tax cuts from becoming permanent.  Because the Progressive-Democrats know more about how to spend our money than we do.

Plans like Medicare for all, free education for all—paid for by raising those taxes.  So much for “free.”

Guaranteed jobs, especially, “green” jobs—at the Progressive-Democrat’s mandated minimum wage because, like all workers, “green” workers are just too stupid to be trusted with freely negotiating their own compensation package.  And hired by whom?  Not so much a free economy employer; “greenery” isn’t competitive, so the Progressive-Democrats intend to centrally plan our energy economy and require greenery along with subsidizing it.  That can be expected to work as well as the Progressive-Democrats’ centrally planned health economy.

Oh, and they want to deepen the central planning on that: as part of their “Medicare for all” bit, they intend for Uncle Sugar to be sole dispenser of and sole payer for each citizen’s (and illegal alien’s) health care.

Block border security by blocking any wall and by eliminating Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  And hamstringing US Customs & Border Protection generally.

It’s going to be an ugly, wasted two years with no serious legislation coming out of the House—only the Party’s nakedly socialist claptrap.  Socialist and Government-run because, these worthies insist, the average American is inadequate to the task of his democratic duty.